Morris v. Futch, A89A0875
| Decision Date | 26 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. A89A0875,A89A0875 |
| Citation | 193 Ga.App. 132,386 S.E.2d 905 |
| Parties | MORRIS et al. v. FUTCH. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Morris & Webster, F. Leonard Morris, Jr., Adel, for appellants.
Simpson & Gray, Joseph B. Gray, Jr., Tifton, for appellee.
Appellant Morris is the owner of several lots in a Tifton, Georgia, subdivision; appellant Ford and appellee Futch own adjacent lots in the subdivision. In February 1987 appellee set fire to a pile of brush and debris he had gathered on the line between his own lot and appellant Ford's vacant lot. Futch walked about 100 feet to a nearby lake shore, and while he was fishing the fire spread across Ford's lot. Although some men working nearby called Futch's attention to the run-away fire, he allegedly permitted it to burn across Ford's lot and eventually across three vacant lots belonging to appellant Morris. The trees and other vegetation on these lots were damaged, and Ford and Morris filed a complaint in the Tift County Superior Court, seeking general and punitive damages.
The trial court granted the defendant/appellee's motion in limine prohibiting the introduction of evidence of any fires or other activity on the plaintiffs' property subsequent to the date of the fire that gave rise to the action below. Plaintiffs moved for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, and, after the jury had rendered a verdict for defendant, plaintiffs then moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The motion was denied, and plaintiffs appeal, enumerating as error the following: (1) The trial court erred in denying the motions for directed verdict and judgment n.o.v. because the evidence demanded a verdict for plaintiffs; (2) the court erred in granting the motion in limine; (3) the trial court erred in giving appellee's requested and allegedly argumentative jury charge concerning innocent and willful trespassers; and (4) the court gave an allegedly erroneous version of appellants' requested jury charge regarding the necessity vel non for the award of nominal damages following any trespass. Held:
1. We find no merit in appellants' first enumeration of error. A verdict shall be directed only when the evidence demands--as distinguished from merely seeming to preponderate towards--a certain verdict. OCGA § 9-11-50(a) requires "no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue" in order for a directed verdict to be authorized. See, e.g., Findley v. McDaniel, 158 Ga.App. 445, 280 S.E.2d 858 (1981). The standard for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, OCGA § 9-11-50(b), is the same as that for the award of a directed verdict. Hiers-Wright Assocs. v. Manufacturers Hanover & Corp., 182 Ga.App. 732, 356 S.E.2d 903 (1987); Bryant v. Colvin, 160 Ga.App. 442, 287 S.E.2d 238 (1981). The record in the instant case reveals the existence of factual questions which should properly have gone the jury. We find no error here.
2. The transcript reveals that appellants sought to present the evidence covered by appellee's motion in limine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern General Ins. Co. v. Holt
...when the evidence demands--as distinguished from merely seeming to preponderate towards--a certain verdict." Morris v. Futch, 193 Ga.App. 132, 133(1), 386 S.E.2d 905 (1989). The transcript reveals evidence from which the jury could have found that appellant was adequately informed that Fort......
-
Georgia Power Co. v. Irvin, S96A1856
...(1995). The same standard of review applies from the denial of a motion for directed verdict, OCGA § 9-11-50(a); Morris v. Futch, 193 Ga.App. 132(1), 386 S.E.2d 905 (1989), and from the denial of a motion for new trial on general grounds. Clark v. United Ins. Co., 199 Ga.App. 1(1), 404 S.E.......
-
Three Notch Elec. Membership Corp. v. Simpson
...S.E.2d 629), and judgment n.o.v. is not authorized when the evidence merely preponderates toward a certain verdict. Morris v. Futch, 193 Ga.App. 132, 133, 386 S.E.2d 905. When there is room for a difference of opinion between reasonable men whether negligence should be inferred, the right t......
-
Stanfield v. Kime Plus, Inc.
...to consequences. The standard for granting j.n.o.v. is the same as that for the award of a directed verdict. Morris v. Futch, 193 Ga.App. 132, 133(1), 386 S.E.2d 905 (1989). It should be granted when "there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced,......